Resolution affirmed. Prove that the Earth sky is always yellow, and you win.
Sky
1. The expanse of air over any given point on the earth; the upper atmosphere as seen from the earth's surface.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Yellow
1. The hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between orange and green, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 570 to 590 nanometers; any of a group of colors of a hue resembling that of ripe lemons and varying in lightness and saturation; one of the subtractive primaries; one of the psychological primary hues.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Arguments
1.When I go outside,the sky looks like many colors to me, even yellow at some point, but it always changes colors. As of now, it looks blue to me. I am not, nor have I ever been, colorblind, so this must be true.

2. The argument that this is merely an illusion is one that is baseless. There is no proof that all the humans of the world have all at once hallucinated, and there is no evidence pointing to it ever happening or ever going to happen. The argument that the sky is actually always yellow but is merely covered up by a giant screen is also baseless. The amount of money needed to cover this is ludicrous. Besides, why would anyone want to?

To prove to you that sky is indeed yellow we need to take a closer look at the definitions provided by Pro.

Sky: "The expanse of air over any given point on the earth; the upper atmosphere as seen from the earth's surface."

Pro accepted this as the definition of sky for the debate so there is no backing away from it.

If you read that statement closely you will see it says "OVER ANY GIVEN POINT".

The whole sky is not one object, it's many parts. In the same way that water is many parts of water.

This is why that definition of the sky phrases it that way.

Many parts have different colors.

The likelihood of there being a piece of sky out of all possible areas of sky where it is yellow is astronomically favorable, whether it's visible or not.

Now I realize that my opponent may say that though there are parts of the sky that are yellow, there are also parts of the sky which are not yellow. And since the title of the debate is "This following statement is, at some point in time, false: The Earth sky is yellow." he would say that turns the debate back in his favor.

But lets look at the definition of sky again, shall we.

"OVER ANY GIVEN POINT ON THE EARTH"

This means that sky can be any straight line drawn from Earth upwards until it enters space.

Because of the sheer amount of particles which make up the sky that would exist in any straight line drawn from Earth upwards, it is still astronomically more favorable that ALL sky is indeed ALWAYS yellow. As well as many other colors.

Thus negating that possible argument he could have made.

Thus saying that the sky is yellow is much more logical, upon examination, than saying otherwise.

Thank you for accepting my debate, Freedo.
I would like to restate the fact that there is no where on Earth where it is ALWAYS yellow.
"The whole sky is not one object, it's many parts. In the same way that water is many parts of water."
1)I think you mean that water is many particles of water. Or is made up of many little parts of water.
2) Water doesn't have a color. It simply looks that way because of the the foreign particles permeating it. Does not have a color, it simply harbors things that do. Extract the pure water, and you'll see its still clear.

"Because of the sheer amount of particles which make up the sky that would exist in any straight line drawn from Earth upwards, it is still astronomically more favorable that ALL sky is indeed ALWAYS yellow. As well as many other colors.

Thus negating that possible argument he could have made.

Thus saying that the sky is yellow is much more logical, upon examination, than saying otherwise."
My opponent's argument hinges on the fact that sunlight is everywhere on Earth, as these are where the particles of color come from. However, this is not the case. In some regions, mainly in arctic ones, there is no sunlight exposure. For example, in the north pole, there is no sunlight from early October, to March 21st.[1] Since there is no sunlight, this means there are no light particles in the air. Therefore, it is total darkness.

Also, on a slightly dubious livejournal, there is one peer who states that the arctic circle may have no sunlight for the entire winter, including one part of Denmark. User name: Shawree. [2]
Thus, my resolution is affirmed, since there is at least one place on Earth that, at least for a time, the sky is not yellow.

"My opponent's argument hinges on the fact that sunlight is everywhere on Earth, as these are where the particles of color come from."

"Particles of color? Lol, I'll leave it be."
Silence! Lol, I agree, that does seem silly. Oh well, its irrelevant.

"1)Has my opponent completely forgotten that our sun is not the only star above the sky?

2)At all points in the sky there is always light coming in from all directions due to the massive amount of stars in the universe."
1)That'd be pretty hard to do, since it is night-time where I live.
2)It takes years for the closest star to us, excluding our sun, to get to us. Four years, to be precise. This star is to the left of the Sun. Considering there will come a time in a 4 year period, or already has, when the arctic circle is turned opposite to that star, and will intersect with the winter solstice, there will be no light coming from our sun nor that one. I don't want to get too deep into this, but that's the closest star. All those other ones take thousands to millions of years to reach us. Now, that time span is easy to work with. Malleable. Also, please take into fact that all those stars are probably obscured by different objects. This means that even if their light hits the Earth (very unlikely) the chances of it hitting the exact point on Earth where the winter solstice is, at the arctic circle, in the thousand year gap... yeah. The odds are very slim. I'm sure we can have a full winter for the arctic circle where there is no light even for one minute.

"Then I may even go further to ask; Does a yellow object actually change color once placed in a dark room? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

No,

An object's color lies in it's structure of particles so that light would reflect in a certain way if introduced. Darkness does not change it's nature."
Irrelevant? Besides, you defeat your own argument. Darkness is absence of light. Therefore, the light would not be reflected to show color since its not actually there.

"Does color cease to exist if everyone goes blind?
Definition of color.
1. That aspect of things that is caused by differing qualities of the light reflected or emitted by them, definable in terms of the observer or of the light, as:
a. The appearance of objects or light sources described in terms of the individual's perception of them, involving hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources.
Only our perception of it. Based on this definition, then, it has no color, since we are all blind.

"A yellow object remains yellow in a dark room.

I agree that is extremely debatable.

But it actually doesn't even matter. Because light always hits the Earth anyway."
This last is irrelevant. He even admits it.

My turn!

As I stated, there is no sunlight in the winter solstice near the arctic circle/North Pole. I would like to reaffirm that. As I rebutted, there is a chance that there will be no light whatsoever from any star.
As my source stated, there is full/total darkness for a period of about six months.[1]

"It takes years for the closest star to us, excluding our sun, to get to us. Four years, to be precise. This star is to the left of the Sun. Considering there will come a time in a 4 year period, or already has, when the arctic circle is turned opposite to that star, and will intersect with the winter solstice, there will be no light coming from our sun nor that one. I don't want to get too deep into this, but that's the closest star. All those other ones take thousands to millions of years to reach us. Now, that time span is easy to work with. Malleable. Also, please take into fact that all those stars are probably obscured by different objects. This means that even if their light hits the Earth (very unlikely) the chances of it hitting the exact point on Earth where the winter solstice is, at the arctic circle, in the thousand year gap... yeah. The odds are very slim. I'm sure we can have a full winter for the arctic circle where there is no light even for one minute."

It matters absolutely not how long it takes for the light to get here nor which stars are closest.

What matters is that the light is here. It's not unlikely, it's fact. Look up in the sky. If you see stars that means their light made it through. And you don't even see all the light that makes it through with the naked eye.

In making the assertion that there is actually a place in the sky which is somehow immune to the all the invading photons from all directions of the universe as if it's in a floating lead block, than you my friend have a very heavy burden of proof.

And seeing as this is the last round, I'm afraid you won't be able to defend that.

The area of the Earth which is described as "totally dark" is not entirely accurate, it's only a generalization made for the absence of main light from the sun.

"The appearance of objects or light sources described in terms of the individual's perception of them, involving hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources.
Only our perception of it. Based on this definition, then, it has no color, since we are all blind."

This is in inaccurate definition. It defies objectivity. The analogy of blindness can just as easily be replaced by ignorance. Is something colorless simply because we don't see it? Are all rocks under the surface of the Earth colorless? Are things only things because we recognize them as being things? Nonsense I tell you. A color is a description about the specific and intrinsic nature about an object. Not a personal opinion. Does the nature about the electrons flowing through your computer right now depend upon your interpretation of it? Again, nonsense I tell you.

Further more, to put forth this definition does not extend to you some absolute authority over the logic of this debate. We must offer only reasonable definitions. Which that one is not. Notice that Earth has not yet been defined in this debate. If you dare challenge my statement about how definitions should be treated in this debate as to say that your definition of color must be accepted than you must also except any definition I put forward for Earth right now.

So I define Earth as something that at all times must be yellow in all it's parts.